Pinned Tweet
October 4 marked one year since I launched Against the Left. 27 articles and 200 subscribers later, I couldn’t be more proud of what I’ve accomplished with this newsletter.
To commemorate this anniversary, I want to highlight some of my personal favorite pieces. 🧵
They literally criminalized being mean.
Prime example of what I call the "rhetoric of liberty" problem.
Call it "involuntary" or "coercive" or whatever if you want. The point is, as long as it respects private property rights, then violating property rights is not usually justified to stop it.
Patrick Carroll retweeted
a very simple solution to virtually every problem would be to stop allowing people who live off taxpayer money to vote
anyone whose entire livelihood depends on the government taking money from other people will always vote for a government that takes more money
we’ve built a system where people can literally vote to give themselves more of other people’s money
the conflict of interest is beyond ridiculous and if you remove the incentive you remove the problem
The point of no return by Richard von Mises is worth reading:
"A state becomes almost unreformable when the majority of the population is financially or structurally dependent on the state (state employees, civil servants, recipients of subsidies, grants, or transfer payments, etc.). As soon as those who net benefit from or are supported by the state outnumber those who do not, the system blocks reforms, since the majority votes out of self-interest for the preservation or expansion of state services."
Does this sound familiar? Some European countries, France, Belgium, Finland are already way beyond that point, closely followed by Germany, Spain, Austria and Italy. It works for a while, as long as markets buy more sovereign debt at reasonable interest rates. The party ends when they stop though. For France, they stopped this month, Belgium will be next.
The longer the socialist illusion persists, the more painful the inevitable cuts and adjustments will be. It’s pure arithmetic. Good luck Europe, good luck Euro. Buckle up, it won’t be pretty.
The 40-hour workweek hurts the interests of workers, actually.
againsttheleft.substack.com/…
The 40-hour workweek wasn’t given to workers. It was fought for and won by generations of labor advocates who demanded fair treatment on the job. On 40-Hour Work Weekday, we honor the workers and unions who secured better wages, safer workplaces, and the right to a healthy work-life balance. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Labor Caucus, I’ll keep fighting to protect workers’ rights, strengthen unions, and make sure every hardworking Nevadan is treated with dignity and respect.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Industrialist Henry Ford popularized the 40-hour work week, and the U.S. government made it federal law through the Fair Labor Standards Act.
npr.org/2021/11/05/105…
teachingamericanhistory.org/document/henry…
cultureamp.com/blog/40-hour-w…
history.com/articles/five-…
People will post stuff like this and then not advocate teaching Bohm-Bawerk in schools because they've never even heard of Bohm-Bawerk. They don't know the first thing about how to argue against communism (debunk exploitation theory of interest, ECP etc.)
But go off, I guess.
Musk should admit there is nuance on this question, I agree.
The left should admit that too. But they aren't.
"Hitler was clearly on the right" is just as problematically lacking nuance as "Hitler was clearly on the left."
Funnily enough, Friedman addresses this very argument just a few minutes earlier in the episode.
"I don't know of any case in history in which monopolies have been able to maintain themselves for very long without having government assistance directly come in on their side."
Dismissing the opinions of non-parents simply because "I can't explain it, becoming a parent just changes your worldview" has got to be one of the most insufferable things parents do.
Paging @AccidentLiberty 😂
The irony of course being that the Graeber Institute would gladly cheer on police violence if it were used to enforce their left-wing agenda.
Only libertarians are consistently against violence.
“You prioritize liberty in your political philosophy but other people prioritize other things.”
I’ve never understood this. You’re advocating for me to be robbed and coerced and your excuse is “well I just don’t prioritize freedom that much”??? How is that reasonable?
Public schools are indoctrination centres.
Starting January 4, every school in Alberta will proudly fly both the Canadian and Alberta flags, and any other flags will only be temporarily displayed when they serve a clear educational, commemorative or community purpose.
Let’s teach our children to celebrate our amazing country and province.
Read the full details here: alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=9…
Because Hitler is the ultimate Evil Person in our zeitgeist, so if you can attach him to a modern political philosophy you can condemn the holders of that philosophy as “being like Hitler.”
Patrick Carroll retweeted
Many libertarians will say "taxation is theft" and talk about "second amendment solutions" but still get upset about this
It's hypocritical but also rational: the logical part of their brain might agree, but the emotional part is (reasonably) scared of saying it out loud
Disagree with LPNH all you want, but the idea that politicians commit aggression as part of their job is libertarianism 101, and the corollary that violence against politicians is therefore responsive force and *not* aggressive force logically follows.
How do so many miss this?
Replying to @reason
LPNH has never to my knowledge encouraged aggressive violence, only self-defense
What is Reason's basis for this claim?
Taxation is theft and here's an article I wrote about it.
againsttheleft.substack.com/…
You know nothing about what makes a country prosperous and successful. So why should you have a "say" in any of it? In every other part of the world you are given a "say" when you've earned it, when you've demonstrated that your opinion is worth something.
So voting shouldn't be a thing because we shouldn't have governments, of course, but in a world where that ideal is unrealistic I have to say, the older I get the more I find it foolish to let young people vote.
They know almost nothing about how the world works.
"Hi I'm 22 and I'd like to vote."
Cool. How many books on economics, political philosophy, law, and public policy have you read? None? Okay, have you run a business, owned property, had kids, taken responsibility for anything significant? No? Do you have any life experience?
























